14 Feb 11
Originally posted by 667joeThis century will be called Darwin's century. He was one of the greatest men who ever touched this globe. He has explained more of the phenomena of life than all of the religious teachers. Write the name of Charles Darwin on the one hand and the name of every theologian who ever lived on the other, and from that name has come more light to the world than from all of those. His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the survival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species, has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox Christianity. He has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that the inspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin of man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature; that the Bible is a book written by ignorance -- at the instigation of fear. Think of the men who replied to him. Only a few years ago there was no person too ignorant to successfully answer Charles Darwin; and the more ignorant he was the more cheerfully he undertook the task. He was held up to the ridicule, the scorn and contempt of the Christian world, and yet when he died, England was proud to put his dust with that of her noblest and her grandest. Charles Darwin conquered the intellectual world, and his doctrines are now accepted facts.
I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another world than he does in this one. Robert Ingersoll
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Orthodoxy" (1884)
The man was a fool.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by 667joehave any original thoughts of your own on the matter?
I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another world than he does in this one. Robert Ingersoll
Personally I can't see why we should expect an infinite God to answer to our finite understanding of the universe.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by 667joeIf God is the Moral Ideal, the perfect being then he/she must have the capacity for perfect reason, unpolluted by subjectivity. If that then is the case, then God is bound by reason, and does not possess free will xerself. Reason being the causation and impetus for action would bind the Moral Ideal to leave humankind autonomous. When people are seen as means rather than ends unto themselves they are robbed of that autonomy and cannot thusly take any action of genuine moral worth.
If god can make heaven perfect, why can't he make earth perfect as well? If free will is the source of our problems on earth, does that mean there is no free will for those in heaven?
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by 667joe"If god can make heaven perfect, why can't he make earth perfect as well?"
If god can make heaven perfect, why can't he make earth perfect as well? If free will is the source of our problems on earth, does that mean there is no free will for those in heaven?
He did. What you see now isn't how it was originally created. But what's the point in debating that with you anyway?
"If free will is the source of our problems on earth, does that mean there is no free will for those in heaven?"
Who said that freewill is the source of our problems? And who said there is no freewill in heaven?
It is extremely difficult to discuss these things with those who are misinformed in the first place about these questions.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by DowardPersonally, I would be very fearful of questioning God about anything at all.
have any original thoughts of your own on the matter?
Personally I can't see why we should expect an infinite God to answer to our finite understanding of the universe.
Meaning, I would check myself before being presumptuous about the way I think things should be, and then accusing God of not being just.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, I guess not, but 'enlightenment' differs depending on who one is talking to.
If you have to ask...🙂
Also, I think enlightenment depends on what one is enlightened of.
But, I also think that enlightenment is dependant on an enlightener. One may be an enlightenee, but true enlightenment requires an absolute authority; a being above question or council by the enlightened.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by josephwDo you have a logical reason for thinking that, or is it just because it fits in nicely with your religion?
But, I also think that enlightenment is dependant on an enlightener. One may be an enlightenee, but true enlightenment requires an absolute authority; a being above question or council by the enlightened.